Forestry institutions

Forestry institutions and institutional restructuring

Rapid transformation of forestry in the Asia-Pacific region needs to be reflected in dynamic and flexible forestry institutional structures. A general shift in the region, towards more participatory philosophies, means that forestry departments in many countries have devolved significant forest management responsibilities. The challenge for these institutions is to reposition themselves to remain effective, while ensuring staff acquire new skills to carry out significantly different types of work.

Institutional reform in the forestry sector has been extensively debated and discussed in recent years and restructurings of government forestry agencies are relatively commonplace in the region. Governments throughout Asia and the Pacific are creating exciting and innovative opportunities for achieving sustainable forest management and biodiversity conservation by decentralizing authority and responsibility for resource management. Discernable shifts can be seen - away from centralized forestry departments and toward the devolution of forest management responsibilities, to state or provincial agencies, to the private sector, and to community and NGO groups. The trend to decentralize is driven by a range of factors, including efforts to reduce central bureaucracies and cut budgets, a history of government forest management failures, increased economic liberalization and market orientation, and growing commitment to more equitable forest management. While the decentralization trends are promising, many programmes have encountered major challenges, disappointments and setbacks.

Many institutional structures have been reformed to reflect changing responsibilities. Box 7, for example, describes objectives and challenges for a forthcoming change in the Department of Forestry and Wildlife in Cambodia. Similarly, in India, the forest departments in many states have been reorganized to more effectively implement the objectives of the National Forest Policy 1988. Shifts towards creation of a market-oriented environment and an appropriate legal and administrative framework conducive to people's participation in the management of forestry sector have required significant policy and institutional changes.

Government agencies need to establish an environment to appropriately balance social, economic and environmental goals of forestry. In general, the Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study (FAO, 1998) noted three main roles for forestry institutions:

(a) to establish conditions conducive to forestry development and ensure appropriate, policies, laws and regulations;

(b) to anticipate, identify and prioritize goals and promote their achievement; and

(c) to provide or develop support services such as training, extension, education and research as a basis for increasing or maintaining productivity and competitiveness.

These objectives are driving forces for change in countries in transition towards market economies, several of which are implementing major institutional changes in the forestry sector. China, Mongolia and Myanmar are significant in this regard. In Mongolia, for example, forestry responsibilities were re-organized in 1987, with the Ministry of Forest Industry being abolished and forest management responsibilities assigned to the Ministry of Nature and Environment. Timber harvesting and forest industry development were placed under the Ministry of Trade and Industry. More recently, organizational deficiencies in the sector have been apparent and Mongolia's renewed National Forest Programme has placed a central focus on structural and organizational changes, including re-establishing a specialist central government agency in charge of forest issues (Nature, Forest and Water Resources Agency, Ministry of Nature and Environment), and establishment of provincial forest offices.

Changes in lines of control for forestry agencies have occurred frequently in the region during the past few years. In several countries, including New Zealand and the Cook Islands, specialist forestry agencies or divisions were abolished altogether, with responsibilities moving to larger entities. In New Zealand, the Ministry of Forestry was merged with the Ministry of Agriculture, in 1997, to create a larger department with more efficient administrative systems. In the Cook Islands, public service restructuring in the mid-1990s saw the discontinuation of the Ministry of Agriculture's Forestry Division, although the Ministry of Agriculture's Planning and Administration Division adopted some forestry responsibilities.

Elsewhere, forestry responsibilities have moved from agricultural or primary industries departments, to agencies with broader environmental scope - and vice-versa. In Sri Lanka, a new Ministry of Environmental and Natural Resources was established in 2001. This ministry is now responsible for all environment related organizations such as Forest Department, Department of Wildlife Conservation, and Central Environmental Authority. In Australia, forestry responsibilities have migrated from the Department of Primary Industries and Environment, to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia, with dual roles of providing customer services to the agricultural, food, fisheries and forest industries, and addressing the challenges of natural resource management. In Thailand, a new Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment was established in 2002. This organization has assumed responsibility for protected forests, as well as undertaking policy and planning for national parks, watershed management, wildlife conservation, community forestry and fire control. "Economic forests" have remained the responsibility of the Royal Forest Department.

The rapid evolution of principles and requirements for SFM means that forestry institutions have had to undertake major changes in their roles and perspectives. In some cases, this has created a marked dislocation, particularly when government forest management responsibilities have been devolved to communities and/or the private sector. Many government forestry institutions are grappling with the need to acquire new skills or struggling to define their new roles in forestry. For most institutions, devolution and decentralization of forest management responsibilities have resulted in major changes. Many institutions also remain severely under-funded, and in some instances the devolution of forest harvesting responsibilities and revenues has compounded budgetary problems.

Changing roles and responsibilities are not confined to government agencies. Institutional change is evident in the private sector, among environmental NGOs and even in forest communities, throughout the region.

The devolution of forest management responsibilities means that the challenge of achieving sustainable forest management "on the ground", is increasingly being shifted to the private sector and to society in general. Private sector companies are often changing their modes of operation in response to changes in community and consumer perceptions. Industry groups have also become more proactive in introducing initiatives such as voluntary codes of practice, in the recognition that self-regulation is preferable to government enforcement. Similarly, many companies have recognized the merits of taking a consultative approach to managing their operations or are required by law to do so. In New Zealand, for example, the Resource Management Act 1991 requires an extensive consultative process prior to establishing new processing mills.

Many challenges still remain, especially where the balance of power is uneven (for example, between private sector companies and tribal groups). Where industry holds advantages in education, resources, understanding and technology there remains a risk of over-exploitation. However, the development of more powerful NGO groups means companies are often held more accountable for their actions. Rogue operators are liable to be held up as critical examples to international audiences, sometimes with significant commercial repercussions.

In countries where communities have a large "hands-on" role in forest management, institutional structures are developing to ensure a coordinated voice in macro-level decision-making. In Nepal, for example, the Federation of Community Forest Users in Nepal (FECOFUN) represents Forest User Groups at a national level. In Pakistan, the Central Board of Forestry was restructured in 2001, into the Federal Forestry Board, with a view to establish a broad-based, multi-stakeholder forum to debate forest policy and sustainable management issues.

Research and education

Forestry research and education is widely recognised throughout the region as a prerequisite for effective management of natural resources. However, this discernment is not normally matched with commensurate effort and organization. Research, education and information systems are variable across the region, dependent mainly on the availability of funding and other resources and facilities. However, without exception, countries invest relatively less in forestry research than in related sectors such as agriculture. Core government forestry agencies in most countries do very little research; most of their resources going into fiscal control and policing work. Extension services are equally limited and often lack even the most basic tools. Few forest departments and research institutes have sufficient critical mass of researchers and generally the researchers lack sufficient training, support and facilities. Even the relatively strong organizations suffer from instability, rapid turnover of personnel, and frequent abandonment of research prior to completion.

Lack of resources is the main constraint hindering research capacities and productivity. However, institutions can do more through reorganization, and better management of talent, time and resources. Most institutions still devote considerable research effort to traditional fields of forestry, in a broad number of biophysical aspects of natural forests and plantations. Few have shifted their emphasis toward policy, environmental and social issues. Instead of focusing energy and resources in areas where they have competitive advantages, institutions tend to undertake an extraordinary number of studies. Often researchers work alone, and the work lacks inter-disciplinary approaches. As a consequence, results are seldom timely and may have little applicability in the real world. Nor is sufficient emphasis placed on transferring the findings into practice.

With the economic downturn in the late 1990s, state support for research declined markedly. Despite the decline, few research institutions have ventured to develop partnerships with the private sector, nor have adequate collaborative arrangements been made with other institutions to access complementary skills and resources. Networking has not become the norm among most institutions. Nonetheless, the more progressive institutions are proactively addressing these challenges.

India is placing considerable emphasis on forestry research, education and extension. The Indian Council for Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) coordinates research and has recently developed a National Forestry Research Plan, based on priorities laid out in the national forest programme. ICFRE also oversees forestry education and supports development of curricula at various levels to ensure expertise in different fields of forestry research. Research institutes have been established for each forest ecological zone including tropical forests, dry forests, and montane forests. A variety of other institutions, including the Wildlife Institute of India and the Indian Institute of Forest Management, provide technical support to the State Forest Departments and to private tree growers. The Forest Survey of India monitors the forest cover of the country and publishes a State of Forests report biennially. A number of private institutions (e.g. Tata Energy Research Institute) and NGOs (e.g. Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment) are beginning to make credible impacts in forestry research. Many forward-looking ideas in community forestry and participatory processes have been initiated in India.

Bangladesh has eight institutions offering education and training in forestry. Of these, four offer university-level professional education, three technical and one vocational level, education and training. However, staff shortages in terms of numbers, skills and capabilities are common in all government forestry institutions. Increasingly, research emphasis is now being given to conservation of natural stands, non-wood forest products, farm forestry, and improved utilization of products.

In Pakistan, the primary research agency is the Pakistan Forest Institute, which also provides professional training and education in forestry. The focus of research has traditionally been on technical issues, especially related to fast-growing plantation species such as eucalyptus and poplars. Since 1991, however, greater focus has been placed on the social aspects of forestry management. Efforts have also been made to decentralize research, by inviting industry and private sector sponsorship, while also promoting the establishment of regional research centres.

In Nepal, forestry research is consolidated within the Forest Research Division of the Forest Research and Survey Office. The main research objectives are to meet the increasing demand for forest products, halt environmental degradation, and ensure agriculture can be maintained in the mountainous zones. As well as traditional tree research, the FRD also looks into the needs of rural communities, with research in fodder production, agroforestry, and non-wood forest products. Notable advances have been achieved in the field of community forestry and participatory processes.

Bhutan currently has four research centres that address forestry. The country also has long-term cooperative arrangements with several European agencies. There are two institutes providing forest training within the country at two-year diploma level and forest guard level. Credible work is ongoing in participatory research to ensure that results can be implemented. Additional focus is placed on ecotourism and other non-destructive forms of economic activity.

In Sri Lanka, agricultural and forestry research is managed by the Council for Agricultural Research Policy. Within this framework, forestry research is undertaken by the Forest Department. The priority research areas include tree improvement and propagation, plantations, protection of the environment, forest produce, wood technology and socio-economics.

Forestry research in China is carried out in the State Forestry Administration (SFA), universities and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). SFA supports research through the Chinese Academy of Forestry (CAF), provincial research institutes (30 provinces), and the Prefectural Forestry Research Institutes (251 research institutes). The CAS is engaged in fundamental forestry research such as applied ecology, water and soil conservation, and taxonomy. The CAF is engaged in a wider range of forestry research issues, and employs nearly 2 000 scientists. There is an emphasis on the transfer of research findings, and over 1 500 forestry extension stations have been set up in the provinces for this purpose.

Until recently, forestry research, extension and community education in Thailand were mainly the responsibility of the Royal Forest Department's (RFD) research divisions. The RFD has since been reorganized, and some of the activities transferred to other agencies. Most of the conservation work, biodiversity and biotechnological research are now with the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. Commercialisation work is handled by the Forest Industries Organization. The RFD is still maintaining the traditional research work on silviculture and management. Overall, the emphasis has moved away from natural forests to research on plantations, and increasingly into biotechnology. Kasetsart University has the country's only forestry faculty and trains most of the country's professional foresters.

The Forest Research Institute at Yezin, Pyinmana, undertakes forestry research in Myanmar. A number of externally funded projects are currently assisting research, mainly in the field of managing teak forests. The recently concluded Regional Model Forest Project introduced several improvements in the management of teak forests, including improvements in harvesting techniques and participatory practices.

A decade ago, Cambodia had virtually no forest research capacity. The Forest and Wildlife Research Institute has since been established as the principal forestry research institution. Initial work concentrated on forest management, but has since diversified into community-based natural resources management, biodiversity protection, and participatory processes.

National efforts in forestry research in Laos only began in the late 1980s. Initially, forestry research was undertaken by the Silviculture Division of the Department of Forestry. Forestry research has since been reorganized under the National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute. With low capacity, both in terms of personnel and facilities, emphasis has been given to applied and adaptive research. The main work so far has focused on evaluation of tree species and provenances for plantations, reforestation, and harvesting.

In Viet Nam, the Forest Science Institute of Vietnam undertakes forestry research. Provincial institutes undertake the implementation of research. Much attention is given to resource creation, and large afforestation programmes have been established. Focus is also being applied to poverty issues, and a variety of community forestry systems are being developed.

In Indonesia, the Agency for Forestry Research and Development (AFRD) under the Ministry of Forestry is responsible for coordinating and supervising forestry research. Forest Research Institutes are distributed among the various forest ecosystems, and institutes have been set up especially for dipterocarp forests, rainforest and natural pine, semi-arid forests, and the swamp and alpine forests, which undertake a broad and diverse range of research.

In Malaysia, the principal forestry research institute is the Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM). Research functions are also undertaken by the Forestry Departments of Sarawak and Sabah. Two universities, the Universiti Putra Malaysia and the University Malaysia Sabah provide tertiary level education for foresters. Unlike most other developing countries in the region, the Malaysian institutes are well funded and adequately equipped. However, the organization and management of research still needs further improvement. There remains a lack of prioritization, teamwork and inter-disciplinary approaches. Most of the research is still limited to the traditional areas of forestry. Some exceptional work has emanated from the forest products area - for example, whole new industries sprang out of FRIM's work on rubber wood and oil palm fibre.

In the Philippines, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is the primary government agency responsible for forestry research. DENR has six sectoral concerns, viz. forestry, lands, environment, geosciences, parks and wildlife, and research and development. The Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau (ERDB), the research arm of DENR, is responsible for developing an integrated research and development program. Four divisions - Forest Ecosystem Division, Upland Farms Division, Grassland and Degraded Areas Ecosystem Division, and Coastal Zone and Freshwater Ecosystem Division, carry out research.

In Papua New Guinea, the Forest Research Institute was established in April 1989 in Lae with a grant from Japan. This consolidated previously scattered research activities into a single institution. Research is organized along divisional lines of forest management, forest products, botany, and forest protection, with focus gradually shifting towards participatory approaches, community forestry and agroforestry.

Forestry research in Fiji is primarily under the auspices of the Silvicultural Research Division of the Department of Forestry, although Pacific Reforestation (Fiji) Ltd also carries out plantation research, particularly focusing on tree breeding programmes for eucalyptus and acacia species. Fiji Pine Ltd has undertaken valuable work on pines and other plantation species.

In Australia, the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation (FWPRDC), the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) are the main research bodies at the national level. The FWPRDC, as a key initiative under the National Forest Policy Statement, undertakes research and development which advances an internationally competitive, sustainable and environmentally responsible forest and wood products industry. CSIRO is a research leader in Australia and carries out forestry research through its Forestry and Forest Products Division. ACIAR was established in 1982 to assist and encourage Australia's agricultural scientists to use their skills for the benefit of developing countries.

Japan's principal forestry research agency is the Forestry and Forest Products Institute (FFPRI). With the headquarters in Tsukuba, FFPRI has over 120 laboratories distributed throughout the country, covering various fields. The research themes cover elucidation of forest functions, improvement of productivity, forest utilization, new uses of wood, innovative technology and international research cooperation and contribution to world forestry.

In New Zealand, forestry research and development funds are drawn from both the Public Good Science Fund and from forest industry. Forestry research in New Zealand has received considerable scrutiny recently, mainly because it has developed a strategy whereby the industry bears some of the costs of research. Forest Research (formerly NZFRI) is the principal forestry research facility. Several universities provide professional forestry training while polytechnics and accredited private training enterprises deliver operational education and training.